New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1887-06-24
sHARP,S TESTIMONY USED. 5
THE JUDGE ADMITS WHAT HE SAID BE-
FORE THE SENATE COMMITTEE.
TRACING THE MONEY RECEIVED BY THE ALDEA-
MES-FARIEY IDENTIFIED AS THE MAN WHO
-. BouGHT BONDS WITH BIG BILLS.


Muchof the morning session at the Sharp trial yesier
day was des oted TO the tracing Of Doodle money, Dut
by the objection Detective SIMPSONS evidence when
was sustained by Judge Barrett, some interesting III
formation rs 10 portion OF the Doodle money was
kept from the jury The prosecution expected 10 provo
through Mr. Sampson II he had been allowed 10 reiate
his conversation with exPo,ce Justice Hogan 10 the
subTreasurv Buding that Moloney in the summer OF
1884 easbed three $4,000 gold certificates there In
the discussion the admissibty OF Simpsons testi
opy the prosecution had admit openly what has long
been suspected, that, exPolice Justice Hogan has
= skipped or at least can't be found.
Mr.. Earnings evidence concerning the investment OF
$4,000 by Alderman Renney, who afterward died. re
called the story current at the time as TO how he
acquired his wealth 1t is said that Kenney grew urea
OF waiting for his money and one night he caed on 'e
stakeholder, keenan,. and at the muzzle OF piston
forced keenan, 10 pay him double share, or $Aoooo
This money, runs the story enabled him 10 plunge
beadonr into all manner dissipation and that carried
him Off
While a discussion was going on between Judge
Barrett and the lawyers regarding certain passages OF
harps evidence before the Senate Committee the Jurors
were allowed O little recess in the jury box Most OF
them fshed from their pockets the expurgated copies
of the morning papers with which they had been sup
Piled by Captain Rickctt. The people in the room
laughed when they these ragged sheets and the
Jurors smiled. The Judge had TO rap for order
John NJ Fooc. who looks after the Government ponu
department of the First National Bank was the hrst wit
ness He completed the evidence that he began on
Wednesday just before the court adjourned In winter
OF 1884 sold $4,000 Of registered Government bonds
to man said he bought them for Sarah Farley He
believed the man was Alderman Farley The man paid
for the bonds with 81 o0O $500 and 800 bills paying
altogether SI2l95 for them, the bonds selling at
l2l 3D. On February 20. 1855, he sold ohehaf OF the
bonds back 122 Ia and on June 20 the DINER h at
I22 IT, The checks were made payable TO Sarah faey
and were paid through the Clearing House to the
III, o1aola
dence They Endorsed Sarah Farley ana
Patrick Farley" At the suggestion of uryman the
Jury were allowed TO compare the latter Endorsement
with Alderman Farleys signature TO the call Tor the
fateful meeting Of August 80. Mr. Fooe identified e1-
Alderman Farley the man who purchased the bonds
from him.
Charles A. wettereau. paying teIer.ofthe German Ex
change Bank testified Alderman Farley had kept an
at that bank for five or six years and that the
two checks exhibited had been deposited in the bank to
Next the prosecution introduced a witness to show
that Alderman McQuade had some doodle !" bIs ana
on the old ground that until sharps connection Win me
matter had been shown the evidence could De
Barrett allowed the evidence to go IN ana Iheh james
unlan cashier Of the M o e Ha hou
No 3I3 Thirtcepthst, that on December 81 ISL
Alderman McQuade paid of the balance OF Siooo thcn
due on the mortgage in 81 ,00o and $500 bills.
THE PROSECUTION UNABLE TO FIND HOGAN.
Thomas sampson the chief detective Of the subTreas
urv was the next witness He knew ex-Poiice Justice
Hogan AMI Billy Moloney. lie saw Mr. Hogan at the
subTreasury the early part of slsS5 and had con-
vers alton with him. Mr. Neo wanted to bring out the
conversations and Mr. Parsons was equally anxious to
keep back long discussion ensued as 10 It's adnis
sibility Mr. Nicol said that If he couldn't connect
Hogan with the afterward the evidence could De
stricken out He had made every effort to mud Hogan,
even causing search he made for him in other States
II the evidence went IN he believed that ne cOud Ger
tan link Hogan With the case Judge bsTTet ssa
had established SO Mr. Eau pson departed without
giving his gs' sarea,eav Observed that he
wished noted that the discussion had been allowed,
Judge Barrett resented this nsnuatiopiwith that air
of Judicial dignity of which he Is such sonsnnmate
would have felt the rebuke half so keenly Judge
Barrett told Mr. nd s e as w he sad r
fused admit the evidence and ad stopped tne discus
sion as was practicable ana In the interests OF
William j. Tanning lawyer, testified that he knew
isss said Mr. flaming to accept The title to piece
Of real estate Of which the agent and which he had
ecssS trsnsaction so far as concerned We
seyed EDO easS S Sf and check for or on the
Emigrants Savings Bank The cneck was drawn by the
aasrsooa tooE back mortgage from Mr. Kenney"
MT Tanning could not recall what was the denomina-
nation because the package small Cross examined
by Parsons he said that the date was within day or
Mr. Niccli next put in evidence the deposition of
Charles T. Alexander concerning the Lyddy Injunction
Stenocrapher Cornell recalled and the argument
concerning the admissi6lty OF tne Iesrony whcn
Sharp sas before orr Wednssday Continued Mr.
Par.ons that OF the testimony given by
cause the circumstances Under which given sharp
being deprived of the oenet Of counsel entitled ~ 70 %
be- used against sr Sharp. Mr.. Nico contended that
on what sharp himself said the Senate investigation
at the times when the question OF allowing him
minds of the jury might not be pre- JUDGED by hearing
read perhaps to be Sc
by the printed copy OF the
Then the lawyers had a chance TO talk again MT
Parsons braced himself up for vigorous ght against
the Senate Committee 1t will fault Of his II the
jury hears that evidence He drew pathetic picture OF
him at the s round Of sns Ss ss
i oi SswYo1k Inc The Senate ayaed
itself Of legal advice and legal assistance ,lsnce
e S xss aSa
spectacle that outraged American Ideas of fair play
the senate Committee But sharp should have refused
TO the questions put TO him lie s ssos nave
law to compel him to answer But the poor old man
,ss rss Mr. r pod
ring decisions In similar cases and Judge m oSx
Sriesry statutes OFFENDING against pro
vision Of the foregoing sections 81 tn. act , relating to
60 offending and may be compelled to attend and TESTIFY
upon any trial hearing or But Ss esmcnY
so given be used In any prosecution or proceed
ing civil criminal against the person so testying
MIR Parsons contendcd that Sharps testimony before
the Senate Committee was compulsory. he was SUB
p9naed The Arms OF the state Senate rep
resenng the power of the law took him before the com
mittee.
Mr.. scmpe. for the people. answered ME- Parsons
There law he said to compel sharp to TESTIFY be-
fore the Senate Committee He had the constitutional
right to refuse to the questions propounded TO
him But he didn't that privilege Therefore he
waived it, What objections he did make were not based
him. These were based on wholly different groun such
as that is answers would reveal matters OF private
character that they would disclose privileged conmun
cations between lawyer and client etc Further he had
tho OF counsel He testified before the Senate
Committee his lawyers advised him to tell the truth
about everything and the COMMITTEES expressly con-
4aa nfiQin